Retrieve connected WordPress sites and RSS feeds used to import content for repurposing. Use this list to identify available content sources before selecting or managing them.
List connected content sources (WordPress sites, RSS feeds) used to import content for repurposing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful domain context by naming what a "content source" actually is (WordPress sites, RSS feeds) and its role (importing content for repurposing), which the annotations cannot convey. It says nothing about ordering or whether disconnected sources are included, so it falls short of 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with the resource and its concrete instances front-loaded, and zero filler. Nothing in it could be removed without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition supplies enough to invoke it correctly and understand what the list contains. A minor gap is the shape of the returned entries (names, types, IDs), which the description does not hint at and no output schema documents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero input parameters and 100% schema coverage, so parameter semantics carry no burden; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a global listing with no filtering knobs, consistent with the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ("List connected content sources") and disambiguates with parenthetical examples ("WordPress sites, RSS feeds") plus the reason they exist ("used to import content for repurposing"). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_connections or list_imported_content, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: listing content sources is self-evidently a discovery/read step that would typically precede add_content_source, fetch_source_content, or repurpose_content, but the description never says so. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer the workflow position from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.